Additional copies may be had, postpaid, for:
10 foT $1.00
50 for 4.00
100 for 6.00
ASSOCIATION OF
CITIZENS* COUNCILS
OF MISSISSIPPI
Winona, Mississippi
Former Justice Byrnes Says —
THE SUPREME
COURT MUST
BE CURBED"
The only living ex-Justice of the
U. S. Supreme Court now filet a dis-
sent from tho decision that declared
segregated schools to be a violation
of the Constitution.
In an article submitted to "U. S.
News & World Report/' James F.
Byrnes speaks out on the decision
which was handed down two years
ago. Former Justice Byrnes takes
the Court sharply to task for over-
turning legal precedents that had
prevailed for 75 years.
Mr. Byrnes holds the Court usurp-
ed powers of Congress and the States
1 to amend the Constitution and warns
that, unless stopped, there may be
no limit to the Court's power.
By
JAMES F. BYRNES
Former Justice of the Supreme
Court of the United States
Rrfrinled from th« Conrroitonal Rtoerd if May 24, IIH,
Or I finally pufellthad by U. S. NEWS * WORLD REPORT
In a copyrifbttd artkla of May 1*. 1f5«.
WO years ago, on May 17, 1954, the Supreme
Court of the United States reversed what had
been the law of the land for 75 years, and
declared unconstitutional the laws of 17 States under
which segregated public-school systems were es-
tablished.
The Court did not interpret the Constitution —
the Court amended it
We have had a written Constitution. Under that
Constitution the people of the United States have
enjoyed great progress and freedom. The usurpation
by the Court of the power to amend the Constitution
and destroy State governments may impair our prog-
ress and take our freedom.
An immediate consequence of the segregation
decision is that much of the progress made in the last
half century of steadily advancing racial amity has
been undone. Confidence and trust have been sup-
planted by suspicion and distrust. The races are di-
vided and the breach is widening. The truth is, there
has not been such tension between the races in the
South since the days of Reconstruction.
One threatened consequence is the closing of
public schools in many States of the South.
A further consequence is the harm done to the
entire country by the demonstrated willingness of the
Supreme Court to disregard our written Constitution
and its own decisions, invalidate the laws of States,
and substitute for these a policy of its own, support-
ed not by legal precedents but by the writings of
sociologists.
Today, this usurpation by the Court of the power
of the States hurts the South. Tomorrow, it may hurt
the North, East and West. It may hurt you.
Though there was no dissenting opinion from any
member of the Court, the South dissents. That dis-
sent is reflected in State legislation and in the day-
by-day occurrences throughout the South, develop-
ments which portray the feeling of the people.
Only now do people living elsewhere begin to
comprehend the determination behind the dissent of
the South. Only now is an effort being made in the
Northern press to give thoughtful, balanced and rea-
sonably impartial presentation of what might be
called “the Southern point of view.“
The suppression of that viewpoint outside the
South has caused much of the nation to suppose that
such dissatisfaction as existed with the Supreme
Court’s decision was due to petty prejudice and would
soon disappear. That theme has been further devel-
oped by the publication of “encouraging” reports of
school-integration experiences here and there below
the Mason-Dixon Line. Those reports may be true of
some Border States and of predominantly white areas
in mountain sections of the South; it is not true of
[2]
any section where negroes constitute as much as 10
per cent of the population.
The problem is numerical as well as legal, edu-
cational, and— in recognition of the Supreme Court’s
concern — sociological.
The corruption of the Reconstruction era is a
matter of recorded history. The memory of the suf-
ferings endured by the white people of the South is
an inheritance. It was during this “tragic era” that
the Fourteenth Amendment was literally forced upon
the helpless States of the South.
When the w*hite people finally wrested control of
the State governments from the carpetbaggers and
newly freed slaves, and the army of occupation was
withdrawn, the South started on the long road to re-
covery. Agriculture and industry were gradually re-
stored. A public-school system was developed.
No one then seriously asserted that mining the
races in the schools was contemplated by the Four-
teenth Amendment. In the constitutions of most of
the States of the union, not just those of the South,
provisions were adopted for the segregation of the
races in the schools.
In 189G in n case known as Plessy v. Ferguson,
involving a statute providing for segregation of the
races on railroad trains, the United States Supreme
Court held that a statute providing for separate but
equal facilities was not in violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution. Thereafter, the Su-
preme Court in several cases involving schools up-
held this doctrine.
Later, the Court, when it included such great
judges as Chief Justice Taft and Justices Holmes,
Iirandeis and Stone, unanimously said that segrega-
tion in public schools had been “many times decided
to be jvithin the constitutional power of the State
legislatures to settle without interference of the fed-
eral courts under the Federal Constitution.”
SOUTH'S STAKE IN SEPARATE SCHOOLS
Relying upon the stability of the law of the land,
and upon the guarantee of State sovereignty in the
Federal Constitution, the people of the South invested
hundreds of millions of dollars in separate schools for
the races. Under this segregated school system, the
Southern negro made greater progress than any other
body of negro people in the history of the world.
The facilities for negro students in many States
were not equal to the facilities provided for white
students. The degree of equality differed not only in
States, but in counties within a State. The situation
in South Carolina was typical of the South. As a rule,
the facilities for negro students in the urban centers
were superior to the facilities provided in rural areas.
The same was true of facilities for white students.
Schools were dependent upon local taxation, and
[3 ]
much of the inequality was due to the greater value
of industrial property and higher income of the city
dweller.
A realization of the inequality that existed be-
tween rural schools and urban schools, as well as
between the races, influenced me greatly to become
a candidate for Governor of South Carolina in 1950.
In my inaugural address I advocated a bond issue
of 75 million dollars and the levying of a sales tax of
3 per cent for the purpose of equalizing the school
facilities. In presenting this, I said:
“It is our duty to provide for the races sub-
stantial equality in school facilities. We should
do it because it is right. For me, that is sufficient
reason."
Of the 75 million dollars authorized, 70 per cent
was allocated to negro schools even thougn the
negro-school enrollment constitutes but 39 per cent
of the total school enrollment
Subsequently, the bond issue was increased until
it is now 137.5 million dollars. In every school dis-
trict there is a high school for negroes and more than
one elementary school. On the whole, the negro
school buildings are superior to the white schools be-
cause they are modern. The number of negroes trans-
ported by bus to those schools was increased 450 per
cent in three years.
Similar educational programs have been under
way in other Southern States.
In South Carolina, with a negro population of
823,022, there are 7,500 negro schoolteachers, whereas
in 12 States east of the Mississippi and north of the
Mason-Dixon Line, with a negro population of 3,351,-
402, there are only 7,712 negro teachers. There is no
difference in the scale of pay for white and negro
teachers.
About the time the educational program was in-
augurated in South Carolina, there was pending in
the United States court a case from Clarendon Coun-
ty, asking equal facilities for negro schools.' Later,
that suit was withdrawn, and a suit was brought by
the same complainants, asking the court to declare
unconstitutional all segregation laws.
The three-judge court, presided over by Judge
Parker, senior judge of the Fourth Circuit, held that
under the decisions of the United States Supreme
Court from 1896 to that date, the segregation provi-
sions of the Constitution and statues of South Caro-
lina were not in violation of the Fourteenth Amend-
ment. The lawyers for the National Association for
the Advancement of Colored People appealed the case
to the United States Supreme Court.
In that Court, the case for Clarendon County was
argued by the late Hon. John W. Davis. He was so
convinced of the soundness of the decision of the
[4]
three- judge court that he agreed to argue the case and
declined to accept compensation for his services.
Had the Court been unanimous in the view that
segregation statutes were in violation of the Four-
teenth Amendment, such an opinion would have been
written within a few months.
Instead, after many months, the Court announced
that the cases should be re-argued, and counsel should
direct their arguments to certain questions.
The first question was:
“What evidence is there that the Congress
which submitted and the State legislatures and
conventions which ratified the Fourteenth
Amendment, contemplated, or did not contem-
plate, understood, or did not understand, that it
would abolish segregation in public Schools?"
Such a question would not have been asked if a
maojrity of the Court was already satisfied that Con-
gress and the State legislatures DID contemplate that
the amendment would prohibit segregation in public
schools.
Attorneys representing the parties involved and
the attorneys general of many States having segre-
gation statutes filed briefs. The overwhelming pre-
ponderance of the legislative history demonstrated
that abolishing segregation in schools was not con-
templated by the framers of the Fourteenth Amend-
ment, or by the States.
We can only speculate as to how the Court
reached its decision. In that speculation, it is inter-
esting to read in the “Harvard Law Review" of No-
vember, 1955, an article entitled, “The Original Un-
derstanding and the Segregation Decision," written
by Alexander M. Bickel, who, according to the “Re-
view,” was the law clerk to Mr. Justice Frankfurter
during the October term, 1952, when the case was
first aTgued. After a lengthy resume of the evidence,
the writer states:
“The obvious conclusion to which the evi-
dence, thus summarized, easily leads is that Sec-
tion 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, like Sec-
tion 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, carried out
the relatively narrow objectives of the moderates,
and hence, as originally understood, was meant
to apply neither to jury service, nor suifragp, nor
antimiscegenation statutes, nor segregation.! This
conclusion is supported by the blunt expression
of disappointment to which Thaddeus Stevens
gave vent in the House.”
The Court, in its opinion, did not admit, as did
Mr. Bickel, the conclusiveness ^of the evidence that
the Fourteenth Amendment did not apply to school
segregation. The Court said the evidence was “in-
conclusive."
[5 ]
PREVIOUS DECISIONS WERE REVERSED
Our Constitution is a written instrument. The
Fourteenth Amendment does not specifically mention
public schools. Having decided unanimously that the
legislative history was not “conclusive” that the Con-
gress or the States intended it should apply to schools,
one would think the Court would have stopped there
and upheld the previous decisions of the Court. In-
stead, it proceeded to reverse those decisions and
legislate a policy for schools.
An explanation of this extraordinary decision is
offered by Mr. Bickel in his “Harvard Review'* article
on page 64, where he said:
“It (the Court 1 could have deemed itself
bound by the legislative history showing the im-*
mediate objectives to which Section 1 of the
Fourteenth Amendment was addressed, and
rather clearly demonstrating that it was not ex-
pected in 1866 to apply to segregation. The Court
would in that event also have repudiated much
of the provision’s ‘line of growth.’ For it is as
clear that Section 1 was not deemed in 1866 to
deal with jury service and other matters ‘im-
plicit in . . . ordered liberty . . .* to which the
Court has since applied it.”
If this law clerk is correct (and I can assure you
the law clerks in the Supreme Court are well in-
formed), it means that the Court, having previously
interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to apply to
jury service and other matters not specifically dele-
gated by the Constitution to the Federal Government,
felt that the soundness of those decisions would be
questioned unless the Court held the Fourteenth
Amendment to apply to schools.
But there was a distinction. Previously the Court
had held that State laws providing separate but equal
school facilities did not deny a constitutional right.
The control of schools had been proposed by some
framers of the Fourteenth Amendment and rejeoted.
There was no legislation by Congress prohibiting seg-
regated schools. The only change in conditions was
that several million negroes had migrated to the big
cities in Northern States and constituted the balance
of political power in several States.
Once the Court becomes committed to a course
of expanding the Constitution in order to justify pre-
vious expansions, there is no turning back. When
next the Court is called upon to “read into” the Con-
stitution something which was never there, another
segment of the people may be the victim. It may be
YOU.
The Constitution provides that any amendment
submitted to the States must be ratified by three-
fourths of the States.
Change was purposely made difficult by the
framers, who jealously guarded their liberties. They
( 6 1
knew “the history of liberty is the history of limita-
tions on government.*'
“COURT IGNORED A WARNING"
In amending the Constitution, the Court ignored
the warning of George Washington in his “Farewell
Address**:
“If, in the opinion of the people, the distribu-
tion or modification of the constitutional powers
be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by
an amendment in the way which the Constitu-
tion designates. But let there be no change by
usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may
be the instrument of good, it is the customary
weapon by which free governments are de-
stroyed.”
Frequently, the Court has applied a constitu-
tional principle to subjects not specifically mentioned
in the Constitution, and not conceived of by its fram-
ers. That has been done, for instance, in applying the
“commerce clause” to congressional legislation af-
fecting forms of transportation and communication
not in existence when the “commerce clause” was
adopted. Material progress, which could not have
been anticipated, justified the Court in applying the
principle of the “commerce clause” and sustaining
the laws affecting commerce between the States.
Ordinarily, the Court lias been controlled by legal
precedents. In the segregation opinion, it could cite
no legal precedent for its decision because all the
precedents sustain the doctrine of separate but equal
facilities.
In 23 of the States that ratified the Fourteenth
Amendment, the courts of last resort held it did not
abolish segregation. The Supreme Court itself, in six
cases decided over a period of 75 years, upheld the
doctrine of equal but separate facilities.
The Court ignored all of these legal precedents
and| the Constitution and said, “We cannot turn the
clock back to 1868 when the amendment was adopt-
ed, or even to JR96 when Plessy v. Ferguson was
written.”
Why not? The function of the Court is to inter-
pret the Constitution, not amend it. Heretofore, when-
ever in doubt about the proper interpretation of the
Constitution or a statute, the Court has turned the
clock back to the time of adoption to ascertain the
intent of the draftsmen. When the Court states, “We
cannot turn the clock back to 1868,” will it ever con-
sider the intent of the framers of the Constitution in
1787?
If the age of a constitutional provision is to be
held against its soundness, what about the age of our
religion? If time invalidates truth in one field, will it
not do so in another?
If the Court could not turn the clock back in these
cases, why did it ask counsel for the litigants and the
[7]
attorneys general of all interested States to file briefs
as to the intent of the Congress in 1868, in submitting,
and the States, in ratifying, the amendments?
And why were counsel asked to argue whether
the Court was bound by its previous decisions, such
as Plessy v. Ferguson?
It is apparent that, when the Court found the
legislative history it requested was overwhelming
against the conclusion it had reached, it declared the
evidence “inconclusive/* disregarded the Constitu-
tion and — invading the legislative field — declared
that segregation would retard the development of
negro children.
That was a terrible indictment of the negro race.
Because — whether a person be black, brown or yel-
low— whenever the Supreme Court says he cannot
develop unless while in school he is permitted to sit
by the side of white students, the Court brands that
person an inferior human being.
Now mark this well! The Court not only ignored
the Constitution and its own decisions, but, in estab-
lishing a policy for schools, ignored the record in the
case.
In support of its decision, after citing K. B. Clark,
who was employed by the National Association for
the Advancement of Colored People, it cited the
writings of a group of psychologists who had not tes-
tified in the trial court. Counsel for the States had
no opportunity to rebut the opinions of these psychol-
ogists. In such procedure there lies danger for all of
us!
And the Court was guilty of what it has fre-
quently condemned. As late as 1952 in the case of
Beauharnais v. Illinois (343 U. S. 250) the Court said:
“It is not within our competence to confirm
or deny claims of social scientists as to the de-
pendence of the individual on the position of his
racial or religious group in the community,**
Counsel had no opportunity to cross-examine
these psychologists as to their qualifications as well os
their affiliations. However, in the United States Sen-
ate on May 26, 1965, Senator Eastland, chairman of
the Senate Judiciary Committee, submitted an amaz-
ing record of several of the authorities cited by the
Court. He said:
“Then, too, we find cited by the Court oji an-
other modem authority on psychology to over-
ride our Constitution, one Theodore Brameld,
regarding whom the files of the Committee on
Un-American Activities of the United States
House of Representatives are replete with cita-
tions and information. He is cited as having been
a member of no less than 10 organizations de-
clared to be communistic, communistic-front, or
Communist dominated.**
As to E. Franklin Frazier, another authority cited
by the Supreme Court, Senator Eastland said, “The
[81
Ales of the Committee on Un-American Activities of
the United States House of Representatives contain
18 citations of Frazier's connections with Communist
causes in the United States.**
In support of its findings, the Court said, “See
generally Myrdal, \An American Dilemma, 1944.*’* I
have seen it. On page 13, Professor [Gunnar Karl]
Myrdal writes that the Constitution of the United
States is “impractical and unsuited to modem condi-
tions** and its adoption was “nearly a plot against the
common people.”
On page 530, Myrdal states, “In the South the
negro's person and property are practically subject to
the whim of any white person who wishes to take
j advantage of him or to punish him for any real or
i fancied wrongdoing or insult.**
\ Millions of people, white and colored, know this
✓ is absolutely false. Members of the Supreme Court
know it is false. It is an insult to the millions of white
Southerners.
Senator Eastland also listed some of those who
were associated with Myrdal in writing his book. He
stated that the files of the House Committee on Un-
American Activities show that many of Myrdal's as-
sociates are members of organizations cited as sub-
versive by the Department of Justice under Demo-
cratic and Republican Administrations.
I am informed by the Senator that no member
h of the Senate and no responsible person outside of
the Senate has challenged the accuracy of his state-
ly merits on this subject. Loyal Americans of the North,
East, South and West should be outraged that the
Supreme Court would reverse the law of the land
upon no authority other than some books written by
a group of psychologists about whose qualifications
we know little and about whose loyalty to the United
States there is grave doubt.
And loyal Americans should stop and think when
the executive branch of the Federal Government
brands as subversive organizations whose member-
ship includes certain psychologists, and the Supreme
Court cites those psychologists as authority for in-
validating the constitutions of 17 States of the union.
RIGHT TO CRITICIZE COURT
Some advocates of integrated schools shudder to
think of anyone’s criticizing a decision of the Su-
preme Court or, certainly, this decision of the Court.
Well, whenever a member of the Court dissents from
the majority opinion, he expresses his views and
criticizes — sometimes in vigorous language — the
Court's opinion.
In recent years there are many examples. But a
case in point is the dissent of the late Justice Owen
J. Roberts, who differed with his colleagues on the
Court in the case of Smith v. Allwright. The Supreme
[9 1
negro school ask for a transfer to the tenth grade of
a crowded white school and the trustees decide it is
unwise to further increase the enrollment in that
school. Will the Court decide the rejection was on
account of race, instead of efficiency, and cite the
trustees for contempt?
Suppose the negroes are admitted: It is agreed
that the average negro child, having had little train-
ing at home, does not possess the training of the av-
erage white child in the same grade and age group.
Shall the white children be held back to help the ne-
groes progress?
The white parents in the District of Columbia
can answer that question. They have had some sad
experiences in the last year. As a result, approxi-
mately 60 per cent of the students in the public
schools of the capital of this nation are negroes. Many
white families have moved to Virginia; many, though
they can ill afford it, have placed their children in
private schools.
If the negro students are not able to do the work
of the white students, can the races be segregated in
the classroom and assigned different class work?
Would not the scars inflicted upon the negro child by
such segregation be far deeper than the harm done
him by associating with only negro students in seg-
regated schools?
Should the races be mixed in a school, will a
board of trustees composed of white men in a South-
ern State employ negro teachers? If not, what will
happen to the negro teachers now employed in the
South?
Today, high schools in the South are more social
institutions than in the past. There is a cafeteria
where all students lunch together. There is a gymna-
sium where students of both sexes engage in various
sports.
Athletic contests, os a rule, are hold at night.
Students, following the team, travel in school buses.
When the races have been accustomed to separation
in buses, who can assure there will not bo serious
consequences?
These are only a few of the problems.
There is a fundamental objection to integration.
Southerners fear that the purpose of those who lead
the fight for integration in schools is to break down
social barriers in ahildhood and the period of adoles-
cence, and ultimately bring about intermarriage of
the races. Some negro leaders deny this. Others ad-
mit this objective. Because the white people of the
South are unalterably opposed to such intermarriage,
they are unalterably opposed to abolishing segrega-
tion in schools.
Disraeli said, “No man will treat with indiffer-
ence the principle of race. It is the key to history.”
[ 12 ]
Pride of race has been responsible for the group-
ing of people along ethnic lines throughout the world.
Race preservation is the explanation of the politi-
cal unrest in South Africa. In the United States, it is
not peculiar to the white people of the South. For
many years, fear of the Japanese influenced legisla-
tion in California.
Today, in 23 of the States, intermarriage of the
races is prohibited by law. These laws'reflect the fear
of mongrelization of the race. To prevent this, the
white people of the South are willing to make every
sacrifice.
It is useless to argue whether the racial instinct
is right or wrong. It exists. It is not confined to any
♦ race or to any country. It cannot be eliminated from
the minds and hearts of people by the views of psy-
chologists or by the order of a court.
; The degree of tension between the races depends
upon the percentage of negro population. In Ver-
mont, where there are few negroes, there is little ten-
sion. But in Detroit, Chicago and Washington, where
the negro population is increasing, tension is in-
creasing.
Frequently it has been asked why the white man
of the South who owned no slaves fought in the Con-
federate Army os bravely as the slaveowner. He had
no financial interest. It was not greed. It was to pre-
serve the rights of the States and thereby preserve
his race. For this he fought and died. His grand-
children have the same racial instincts.
Abraham Lincoln was not charged with racism,
but he said, “While the races remain together there
must be the position of superior and inferior, and I
as much as any other man am in favor of having the
superior position assigned to the white race.” He
further snid, as to political equality, “My own feel-
ings will not admit of this, and if mine would, we
well khow that those of the great mass of the whites
will not. Whether this feeling accords with justice
and sound judgment is not the sole question, if in-
deed it is any part of it. A universal feeling whether
well or ill-founded cannot be safely disregarded.”
Since Lincoln's words were uttered, the negro
living by the side of the white man of the South,
under segregation laws, has made great progress —
educationally, culturally and economically. The
white mail of the South wants to help the negro con-
tinue to progress, first because it is right and. second,
because it is to his own advantage. Unlike Lincoln,
he does not say there must he the position of superior
and inferior. He says in State-supported facilities
there should be equality but he a. so says “equal fa-
cilities" does not mean the same facilities.
“WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?"
Frequently, the question is asked:: Where do we
go from here? Solomon, with all his wisdom, could
[ 13 J
A 64
ilWUrilfflllHF Ififfr II ITfl iF T If i
not give a positive answer. We do know that the
ipproximately 40 million white Southerners will do
everything that lawfully can be done to prevent the
mixing of the races in the schools.
The hope is for voluntary segregation. As the
negro has progressed educationally and economically,
a constantly increasing percentage of them have de-
veloped a pride of race. That negro does not want
his children forced into schools where they will not
be welcomed. He prefers to have them attend schools
for negroes, taught by negroes. However, recent
events indicate such men will be coerced by the Na-
tional Association for the Advancement of Colored
People and Northern negroes to demand admission
to white schools. Therefore, there is fear for the
future. *'
Plans vary. In some States, the legislature has
repealed the statute requiring children to attend
schools. When the overwhelming majority of the
people of a State are opposed to integrated schools,
they could not be expected to enforce laws requiring
children to attend mixed schools.
In most States, the law now requires trustees or
other school officials to assign children to schools. In
the cities where the negro population is usually con-
centrated in two or three areas, schools have been
placed in those areas. It is reasonable that negroes
should be assigned to schools nearest their homes.
In the rural districts there is no such segregation of
homes. There the problem will be more difficult, and
— more dangerous.
In South Carolina and in some other States, laws
have been enacted providing that if — by order of any
court, State or federal — a student is assigned to a
school different from that to which he is assigned by
school officials, all appropriations for the school to
which that student is assigned and all appropriations
for the school from which he oomes shall immediate-
ly cease. Similarly, it is provided that funds appro-
priated for operation of school buses shall be avail-
able only for segregated buses.
The theory of this legislation is that under the
Constitution there are three branches of Government
which ihall forever be kept separate. It is the func-
tion of the legislative and executive branches of State
governments to appropriate for and administer school
funds. If a State or federal court shall arrogate to
itself the right to assign children to schools different
from the assignment made by the officials designated
by the legislative and executive branches of the State
Government, no funds shall be available for such
schools.
It is predicted by counsel for the National Asso-
ciation for the Advancement of Colored People that
the United States Supreme Court will declare these
appropriation laws unconstitutional. In view of the
[ 14 ]
segregation decision, no man can say positively the
prediction will not come true.
If the Supreme Court shall declare unconstitu-
tional all State statutes having, in its opinion, the
effect of continuing segregated schools, then as a last
resort many States will discontinue public schools.
Some financial assistance would be provided for par-
ents, white and colored, sending children to private
schools. Such a plan is proposed in Virginia.
By an overwhelming vote in South Carolina in
1952, there was eliminated from the State Constitu-
tion the provision that public schools must be pro-
vided for “all children between 6 and 21 years of
age." The purpose was to permit the Legislature to
be free to discontinue public schools should all other
efforts fail.
NEGROES COULD SUFFER MOST
Should this happen, it will be 'unfortunate for
both races. It would be particularly unfortunate for
negroes because they do not have the financial ability
to purchase or to build and equip schools. That fact
does not deter the reckless leaders of the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People
from jeopardizing the continued existence of negro
schools as well as of white schools.
Should the public schools close, the white people
of the South will see that an education equal to that
given white children is available to the negro chil-
dren who are being used as pawns by the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People
in an effort to solve overnight a great social problem.
Integration is now demanded in other fields. In
South Carolina, for example, there are recreation
parks, supported by public funds and equipped with
vacation cabins, lakes and other facilities. For the
maximum enjoyment of all, and for the preservation
of good order, the parks are operated on a segregated
basis — some for whites and some for negroes.
Recently, a suit was brought in a federal court
to force the admission of negroes to a park set aside
for white people. The General Assembly, rather than
wait for another race-mixing decree, promptly and
unanimously ordered the park closed. The suit was
dismissed by the court. For the future, money is ap-
propriated only for segregated parks. Similar suits
have been brought in other States. All parks may
soon be closed as a result of litigation inspired by the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People and some Northern sentimentalists who do
great injury to their fellow man. Woodrow Wilson
once said:
“It will be a bad day for society when senti-
mentalists are encouraged to suggest all the
measures that shall be taken for the betterment
of the race.”
[15]
A 64
THREATENED: POWER OF STATES
Tragic as may be the consequences in destroying
the public-school system in the South, more frighten-
ing are the consequences of the trend of the present
Court to destroy the powers of the 48 States.
In the case of Pennsylvania v. Steve Nelson, de-
cided April 2, 1956, the same Court that declared un-
constitutional the segregation statutes of 17 States
invalidated the laws of 42 States prohibiting the
knowing advocacy of the overthrow of the Govern-
ment of the United States by violence, as long as
there is a federal law against sedition.
The Department of Justice protested to the Court
that the State laws did not interfere with the en-
forcement of the federal statute. But the Court struck
down the laws of 42 States. Justices Reed, Burton
and Minton vigorously dissented. , :, l' : ,
One week later the Court declared unconstitu- ,
tional a provision of the Charter of New York City
under which Professor Slochower, an employe, wds
dismissed for failure to answer a question in an au-
thorized inquiry, on the ground that his answer might
incriminate him. It is encouraging to the people that
the same three Justices dissented and were joined by
Justice Harlan.
Power intoxicates men. It is never voluntarily
surrendered. It must be taken from them. The Su-
preme Court must be curbed.
The Constitution authorizes the Congress to regu-
late the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Loyal Americans who believe in constitutional gov-
ernment appeal to the court of public opinion in the
hope that you will urge the Congress to act before it
is too late.
The present trend brings joy to Communists and
their fellow travelers who want to see all power cen-
tered in the Federal Government because they can
more easily influence one Government in Washington
than the 48 governments in 48 States.
But the trend of the Court is disturbing to mil-
lions of Americans who respect the Constitution and
believe that in order to preserve the republic we
must preserve what is left of the powers of the States.
You may be unconcerned today. You may “Cry
Tomorrow*'!
Additional copies may be had, postpaid, for:
10 for $1.00
50 for 4.00
100 for 6.00
Please send cash, money order or check
with order.
ASSOCIATION OF CITIZENS' COUNCILS
Greenwood, Mississippi
LAWRENCE -GREENWOOO 67733L
[16 1
1
From The
Congressional Record
1956
MIXED SCHOOLS
AND
MIXED BLOOD
By Herbert Ravenel Sass
W
Herbert Raven kl Sass, author f presents the
fundamental case for the white South . A native
of Charleston , South Carolina , an videpesident ,
and an Episcopalian, Mr. Sass is imhued with a
tradition which he believes is based on un-
changing truth . His argument goes to the very
heart of the controversy: Would integrated
schools lead to mixed blood?
